Bowen Sanders, Barbara Sanders George Howard Rhodney Cantu Joline Cantu v. Parker Drilling Company, an Alaskan Corporation

911 F.2d 191 116 Lab.Cas. P 56,350 , 5 Indiv.Empl.Rts.Cas. 1009, 5 Indiv.Empl.Rts.Cas. 1376 Bowen SANDERS, Barbara Sanders; George Howard; Rhodney Cantu; Joline Cantu, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. PARKER DRILLING COMPANY, an Alaskan Corporation, Defendant-Appellant. Nos. 87-4352, 88-3748. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Feb. 7, 1989. Decided Aug. 7, 1990. As Amended Sept. 26, 1990. Thomas M. Daniel, David T. Jones, Perkins Coie, Anchorage, Alaska, for defendant-appellant. Lee Holen, Elizabeth Johnson, Johnson & Holen, Anchorage, Alaska, for plaintiffs-appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Alaska. Before REINHARDT, KOZINSKI and TROTT, Circuit Judges. TROTT, Circuit Judge: SUMMARY 1 This case arises out of a wrongful termination dispute between Parker Drilling Company ("Parker") and Bowen Sanders, Rhodney Cantu, and George Howard ("plaintiffs"). Parker terminated plaintiffs upon concluding they smoked marijuana while working on Parker's oil rigs in violation of Parker's drug policy. After a vigorously contested trial in federal district court, the jury found on a contractual claim that Parker did not have…

SUMMARY

This case arises out of a wrongful termination dispute between Parker Drilling Company (“Parker”) and Bowen Sanders, Rhodney Cantu, and George Howard (“plaintiffs”). Parker terminated plaintiffs upon concluding they smoked marijuana while working on Parker’s oil rigs in violation of Parker’s drug policy. After a vigor *193 ously contested trial in federal district court, the jury found on a contractual claim that Parker did not have “just cause” to terminate plaintiffs. 1 Parker sought a judgment notwithstanding the verdict or, in the alternative, a new trial. Both motions were denied by the district court, and this appeal followed.

Parker argues that the district court erred in calling on the jury to decide whether plaintiffs actually smoked marijuana on the rigs. Parker’s theory is that the jury should only have been asked to determine whether Parker’s decision to terminate was based on a good faith belief that plaintiffs smoked marijuana on the oil rigs, not whether the allegation was actually true. Parker asserts that if it was acting in good faith, it is insulated from liability.

We hold that under the law of Alaska, the jury in deciding the contractual issue of…

concurring:

I am in complete agreement with the opinion Judge Trott has authored for the Court. 1 I write separately only in order to respond to the dissent’s vehement attack on the concept of job security — a concept of fundamental importance to all of America’s working men and women. The dissent claims that the result we reach today is “so preposterous it would be laughable if it were not scary,” dissent at 215, a remarkable comment considering that the dissent not only flagrantly misconstrues an elementary legal principle in the field of employment law — specifically the meaning of “just cause,” a phrase used in most collective bargaining agreements throughout the nation for the past fifty-odd years 2 — but does so in “a dangerous and unprecedented way.” Dissent at 207. Under the dissent’s interpretation of just cause, “whether plaintiffs did or did not smoke marijuana was not directly relevant to the jury’s deliberations; all that mattered was whether company officials reasonably believed they had.” Dissent at 209, n. 7 (emphasis in original). As our dissenting colleague puts it, as long as Parker “reasonably believed that plaintiffs were smoking marijuana on the rig,” then…

dissenting:

Working on an oil rig is dangerous business. It requires total concentration, precise timing, a fair degree of coordination and a significant amount of speed. Rig accidents can have disastrous consequences, ranging from severed limbs and multiple deaths to massive despoliation of the environment. It goes without saying that drug abuse has no place on oil rigs and that a company operating oil rigs has the right — indeed, the obligation — to take decisive action when it obtains reliable information that some of its employees may be abusing drugs while on duty.

This is the unhappy tale of a company that did just that. Company officials reasonably believed that three employees had used drugs on the job, not once but repeatedly. Two eyewitnesses fingered the drug-using employees; the company pursued the matter promptly, but not precipitously, obtaining confirmation from yet a *205 third eyewitness before discharging the violators. The personnel action was taken in a balanced, detached, professional manner, free from any hint of rancor or personal animosity. Had the company acted less decisively, it would have betrayed its responsibility to other employees and the…